| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| US military intelligence critic to lead spy agency |
| 2012-04-20 |
| AFP - A US general who once blasted the work of military spies in Afghanistan as "only marginally relevant" has been nominated to take over the Pentagon's intelligence agency, officials said. The decision to name Lieutenant General Michael Flynn suggests a possible shake-up of the sprawling Defense Intelligence Agency as the general has earned a reputation for pushing for dramatic change in his work with special forces. Flynn was a scathing public critic of military intelligence in Afghanistan, where he served as a top intelligence officer in 2010, saying it failed to provide decision makers with a clear picture of conditions on the ground. He chose to publish his critique through a Washington think tank, the Center for a New American Security, instead of sticking to customary channels within the Pentagon bureaucracy. "Eight years into the war in Afghanistan, the US intelligence community is only marginally relevant to the overall strategy," his report said. "Having focused the overwhelming majority of its collection efforts and analytical brainpower on krazed killer groups, the vast intelligence apparatus is unable to answer fundamental questions about the environment in which US and allied forces operate and the people they seek to persuade," it said. Flynn is credited with playing an influential role during his tenure at Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), the secretive headquarters that oversees elite commandos like the team that killed the late Osama bin Laden ... who is no more... in May 2011. At JSOC, Flynn reportedly persuaded special forces to place a higher priority on scooping up intelligence while carrying out targeted attacks on bad boys. His nomination reflects the ascendancy of special forces in policy making both within and outside the American military, a trend reinforced by the successful operation against Bin Laden. Flynn, whose nomination must be approved by the Senate, currently serves as the assistant director of national intelligence for partner engagement at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. |
| Posted by:trailing wife |
| #12 It is true that this emphasis is characteristic of spec ops. True. Doesn't help the Marine that's been ordered to clear and hold terrain. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2012-04-20 21:10 |
| #11 You nailed it lotp. :-) Yes, the Klingons and Director George Tennant had the lead. The "fix" was in however, as evidenced by the hostility and comlicit response to the team's finding even before they were wheels up from Baghdad. Much, much easier to kill "the WMD factory" in Iraq than follow the Russians to Syria. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2012-04-20 11:37 |
| #10 CIA had the lead on WMD in Iraq. I know one of the players, who left that agency shortly thereafter because of what she perceived (rightly? wrongly?) to be strong pressure from the Bush-Cheney White House to find evidence that Saddam had an active program whether or not it was there. She isn't the only one who felt that their analyses were dictated ahead of time by Cheney and Feith. That one wasn't DIA's fault. |
| Posted by: lotp 2012-04-20 11:27 |
| #9 Here is his Briefing for WEST last year. He starts with vision around 8 minutes in. He is not stupid. |
| Posted by: newc 2012-04-20 11:23 |
| #8 but others are a bit broader, including military participation in identifying / tracking and possibly interdicting chem/bio/nuke WMD proliferation through various networks. lotp Yes, I seem to recall a couple of Saddam's tractor trailers that were investigated at length and were deemed by CIA/DIA to be ..... "mobile WMD manufacturing facilities." All of which, in the final analysis, turned out to be flawed and incorrect intelligence from both CIA/DIA and an embarrassment for Colin Powell who brief the trailers at the UN. In his post inpection report, the contractor and lead microbiologist who headed up the WMD survey team found that the trailers had no connection to the production of WMD. His team's findings were in contradiction to that of the Agency and were summarlily shelved. The microbiologist's preliminary report was met with cold reception even before he departed Baghdad. A few months after his team's finding, he was quietly dismissed. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2012-04-20 11:19 |
| #7 Actually, Flynn has been pushing for the opposite of high-viz sexy ops. He was and has been a major voice for understanding what is actually going on at the ground level vis a vis various subgroups within Afghan, where the real power influences reside, how to effectively engage them - and when that engagement should be kinetic. It is true that this emphasis is characteristic of spec ops. But he applied it with a more strategic perspective as well, specifically pushing against a lot of stupid high profile 'agreements' we made with Karzai and the other corrupt boys in Kabul at the expense of traditional tribal leaders. The resulting depowering of those leaders openly, disastrously and (he argued) predictably strengthen the Taliban's support and/or ability to impose itself on local populations. That depowering also was linked to systemic corruption, an issue he kept calling to the attention of senior leadership not only because it wastes our money but also because it undercuts any willingness of most Afghans to support our involvement there. It's also a mistake to think of Flynn and DIA only in terms of tactical intel. The agency has a lot of missions. Some of them are very tactical ops focused, but others are a bit broader, including military participation in identifying / tracking and possibly interdicting chem/bio/nuke WMD proliferation through various networks. In the 90s, cooperative threat reduction worked with ex-Soviet WMD specialists because the forms of cooperation offered (employment, transition to civil applications of advanced bio etc. skills) fit their culture and needs. Flynn understands that the equivalent challenge today resides in very different cultures and among very different groups. |
| Posted by: lotp 2012-04-20 10:47 |
| #6 I don't like the fact that he aired his complaints through a think tank. Perhaps he had a reason but it seems as bad as the CIA leaks to the media because they disagreed the policy. |
| Posted by: Rjschwarz 2012-04-20 10:32 |
| #5 #4 It means you get high-vis 'sexy' like the Bin Ladin raid. It does little to improve operational intelligence which is needed to work immediate or short-fuse issues. In other words, the guys actually doing the work on the ground aren't getting any assistance. Pappy Absolutely correct! It also means you have all the political cover and support (money and future funding) you will ever need. "Much can be accomplished if no concern is given to who gets the credit." Follow the money! |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2012-04-20 09:08 |
| #4 It means you get high-vis 'sexy' like the Bin Ladin raid. It does little to improve operational intelligence which is needed to work immediate or short-fuse issues. In other words, the guys actually doing the work on the ground aren't getting any assistance. Anacostia will know the brand of the cigarette a Pak general smokes and what time he calls his mistress. As far as letting a battalion S-2 know that two of the general's majors are directing Taliban operations from two villages over - eh. Langley can kill any Taliban Number-Three it wants to. Clear and hold a valley and its villages? No. Note: "Center for a New American Security". In other words, if you crave a return to the wet-dream of a New Cold War, where there's money and work for the academic, a chance for a new tango of words at the diplomatic functions and any politically-detrimental (read "vote losing") deaths are confined to the back alleys like a Tom Clancy novel, this is a great opportunity. Doesn't head off losing or stalemating the hot-wars or even, y'know, actually ending the whole thing. But that's never the objective anyway. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2012-04-20 08:02 |
| #3 Why all the hate? He seems like a perfect fit for the job. I think this is great news. |
| Posted by: gromky 2012-04-20 07:47 |
| #2 Goodphuechingluck phixing DIA. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2012-04-20 06:33 |
| #1 At JSOC, Flynn reportedly persuaded special forces to place a higher priority on scooping up intelligence while carrying out targeted attacks on bad boys. Easy to be a hero if your budet is unlimited, you have the best and most up-to-date kit, you are providing the suck-up and operator muscle for the CIA, your collection priority trumps everyone else's, you operate with seperate ROE, you receive operational airlift priority, and you generally refuse to disseminate (share intelligence) with the big Army or Marines. Of course everybody but YOU appears ineffective, but that was a goal as well. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2012-04-20 06:32 |